Introduction

This page describes a few modern orders of knighthood, which are either
recreations of specific medieval orders, or imitations of medieval or monarchical
orders without specific reference to any one.

The term "bogus" is one I don't like, because it was so abused
by Arthur Fox-Davies, who thought that any arms which were not delivered
on parchment by a royal official were "bogus"; thus relegating
90% of heraldry into inexistence. As far as I am concerned, there is no
good reason why anyone could not create "orders of chivalry"
today; how seriously such associations would be taken will depend on many
factors, such as their membership, stated goals and veritable activities;
but also on what they claim to be. Only people who would reject as "bogus"
any such organization might be offended by the choice of certain orders.
I discuss the general question of legitimacy of orders
separately.

I discuss two kinds of orders, revived and recently
created. I use the term revived to refer to associations
which call themselves orders of chivalry but are the only ones to do so,
and which also claim to be identical with or directly emanated from
well-defined historical orders of chivalry. I discuss here a few, sometimes
entertaining examples of associations which have sprung up in the past.
In some cases, like Lazarus or the British Order of Saint-John, the origins
are what they are, but the orders have, to a large degree, transcended
them.

By recently created orders I mean institutions which
call themselves orders of chivalry, and imitate in their general appearance
(name, style, insignia, activities) well-known orders or monarchical orders,
without claiming to be the continuation or revival of any specific historical
order.

Guy Stair Sainty also discusses a large number of
self-styled
orders (including many not mentioned here) on his Web site (and he
predictably disagrees with my placement of the Most Venerable Order on
this page!).

A note: in the references, I have listed all documentation
that I have found mentioned in various bibliographies, but I have
had access to a small portion only. Those books I did consult
are marked with an asterisk.

I thank James Algrant and Guy Sainty for helpful comments, although
the opinions expressed here are mine only and do not engage their responsibility.

Revived Orders:

The Modern Templars (18th-20th c.)

The abrupt and dramatic end of the Order of the Temple in 1312, and
the execution at the stake of its last Grand-Master Jacques de Molay in
1314, created the right conditions for future claims of resurgence. A similar
phenomenon has occurred in the past with dynasties: the various impostors
Czar Dimitri Ivanovich in 1605, the various people claiming to be Louis
XVII (the most famous being Naundorff), the woman who claimed to be Anastasia
daughter of the Czar Nicholas II, etc.

In Spain and Portugal, the surviving Templars were regrouped into new
orders founded by the sovereigns. Elsewhere, the Templars endured various
fates, but the organisation itself disappeared, its leadership killed,
its assets confiscated and turned over to the Hospitallers of Saint-John.

In the 18th centuries several legends emerged, claiming that the Templars
had in fact survived as an order. Jacques de Molay, on his way to death,
had allegedly appointed someone as his successor and entrusted him with
perpetuating the Order in secrecy. That successor is variously named as
the preceptor of Auvergne (who fled to England but died there in jail)
or an English knight. The successor is said to have gone to England or
Scotland and found refuge among the mason guilds. Thus the secret traditions
and knowledge of the Templars (acquired in the East, of course) were passed
on to the masonic associations. Not surprisingly, these legends appear
at the time when freemasonry is created in England and Scotland, in the
early 18th century. Knights Templars became a grade in some forms of free-masonry
in the mid-18th century, and it seems that an offshoot of that grade became
an order in the US and Canada in the late 19th century (see Land, Robert
Ernest Augustus: Fifty years in the Malta order. Toronto, 1928).

One particular revival occurred in 1804. Two French masons, Philippe
Ledru (1754-1832) and Bernard-Raymond Fabré-Palaprat (1775-1838)
found the Order of the Temple, and Fabré-Palaprat is made its grandmaster.
Napoleon I, who viewed freemasonry favorably, allowed them to carry on
their activities, including solemn processions in the streets of Paris
(albeit in modern attire with mantles and toques). Later, in 1815, Sir
William Sydney Smith (1764-1840) linked up with these neo-Templars. As
admiral of the British navy he had successfully defended Acre against Napoleon
in 1799, and supposedly was given by the Greek archbishop a Templars' cross
(left in Acre by Richard Lionheart) in gratitude. This cross opened the
doors for Sir Sydney who became a Templar and tried to create a branch
in England, for which he was made Grand-Prior. His aim was to send the
order to participate in the liberation and pacification of Greece and other
areas under Ottoman control. He also dreamed of establishing a base in
Malta and taking over the old activities of the order of Saint-John (since
Malta was then in the hands of the British). He managed to get Augustus-Frederick,
Duke of Sussex (1773-1843) interested in the project. The duke of Sussex
(6th son of George III) became Grand Prior of England. Another individual
active in the revival was Charles Tennyson d'Eyncourt (uncle of the poet
Alfred Tennyson). On the death of Fabré-Palaprat Smith became Regent
of the order, but his subsequent death soon followed by that of the duke
of Sussex dissipated the order in England. D'Eyncourt himself lost interest
and resigned from the order in 1849. The French branch seems not to have
outlived its founder.

In the 20th century, pseudo-Templars proliferated. They are chronicled
in Chaffanjon anf Galimard-Flavigny.

References

* Malcolm Barber (ed): The military orders : fighting for the
faith and caring for the sick Aldershot, Great Britain, 1994; Variorum.

The Order of Saint Thomas of Acre (18th-19th c.)

This order was originally founded as a purely religious order in in
Acre in 1190, probably by Richard Lionheart. It was devoted to Saint Thomas
Becket, and retained an English character throughout its history. In 1228,
Peter des Roches, bishop of Westminster, reorganized the order into a military
monastic order on the model of the Teutonic Order. The order did not play
a major military role, and after the fall of Acre in 1291 it retired to
Cyprus. Sometime in the 1370s the order was moved to its London house.
There it survived as a mainly hospitaller order until it was dissolved
along with other orders in 1540.

At what time it was revived I do not know for sure. It appears again
in the early 18th century in Jacobite circles, and was one of several organizations
active in promoting the Jacobite cause. It seems to have been under the
protection of the exiled Stuarts in France. George Keith, Earl Marischal
of Scotland (1692-1778) was its Grand Master until he transferred the office
to Seignelay de Colbert Traill, younger son of Laird Castlehill and bishop
of Rodez. Later we find Sir Robert Strange as its Grand Master, and in
1848 Lord Elphinstone (1807-60). At some later point Bertram, 5th earl
of Ashburnham (1840-1913) is Grand Master, succeeded in 1908 by Melville
de Ruvigny (1868-1921).

Other Jacobite orders or associations include the Realm of Sion and
the Order of Sangreal. In 1848 Henry Lascelles Jenner, bishop of Dinedin
in New Zealand, founded the grandly named Sovereign Sacred Religious
and Military Order of Knights Protectors of the Sacred Sepulchre of Our
Lord Jesus Christ and of the Most Holy Temple of Zion, which was later
merged with Sion and Sangreal into a "federal chivalric condominium"
called the Sovereign Order of the Realm of Sion.

References

* Alan Forey, The Military Order of Saint Thomas of Acre,
in the English Historical Review (1977), 92:481-503.

* Roger Ararat, Preface to Ruvigny: The Jacobite Peerage.
1914.

The Prehistory of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint-John
of Jerusalem (MVOSJ) (1827 to 1888)

See the official site of the US
priory, with links to an in-depth history of the order. What follows is
my personal interpretation.

This Victorian invention has its origins in the turmoil of the Napoleonic
era. Following the capture of Malta in 1798 and the conquest of most of
Europe by Napoleon, the Order was quite disorganized in 1814. The return
of the Bourbons to France prompted the formation of a "capitular commission"
of the French langues by an assembly of French knights in May 1814, which
was initially recognized by Louis XVIII, and approved by a papal bull of
August 10, 1814. It began lobbying for a return of the Order's French properties,
and acting at the Congress of Vienna for a return of the island of Malta.
Camille de Rohan was head of the commission, followed in 1816 by Lasteyrie
du Saillant and later by Jean-Louis de Dienne. It failed to persuade Britain
to return the island, but it obtained French government pensions for the
professed knights (about 90 survived) and worked on the return of the estates,
which seemed possible if the Order regained its territorial sovereignty.
Offers of Elba from the Austrian government were rejected because Metternich
demanded control of the Grand-Mastership. The search was on for some vacant
island.

The French Commission, then controlled by its Chancellor Pierre-Hippolyte
de Sainte Croix-Molay, then turned to the possibility of helping the Greeks
in their war of independence, and a treaty was signed between the Commission
and the Greek rebels in June 1823. The treaty promised the order several
Greek islands and Rhodes (should it be conquered), and in exchange the
Order would raise troops and 10 million Francs. To begin the process the
Comission started making knights rather indiscriminately, at least 200
in the space of a few years. But the treaty was opposed by other Greek
rebel groups, as well as England and Austria. Under international pressure
the French government withdrew its recognition of the Commission and henceforth
acknowledged only those knights which had also been authorized by the Lieutenancy
of the Order in Messina. (In fact, a royal ordinance of April 16, 1824
stated that only the French royal orders were legal in France, and bearers
of foreign orders needed authorization from the government; an instruction
of the Chancery of the Legion of Honor of May 5, 1824 provided further
details). The Lieutenant of the Order dissolved the commission. The floatation
of the loan in the form of bonds on the London market collapsed before
it started.

The Commission nevertheless revived itself in 1826, under the presidency
of Calonne d'Avesnes but still controlled by Sainte Croix-Molay, and continued
in its attempts at raising money for its Greek operation. At this time
it was totally unofficial, disavowed by the Order of Malta and unrecognized
by the French government. The Commission decided to search private sources
of funds in England, and opened negotiations with a Scot called Donald
Currie, an acquaintance of Sainte Croix-Molay. In 1827 Instruments of Convention
were signed between the Commission and Currie, enabling him to raise L240,000
by recruiting new members (even non-Catholics). Currie did not raise much
money but he recruited avidly.

Greek independence having been achieved without any participation of
the Order, Sainte Croix-Molay now turned to the possibility of settling
in Algeria, conquered in 1830 by the French. But the same year Charles
X was overthrown, and the Commission lost all influence with the French
government, which also broke diplomatic relations with the Lieutenancy
in Messina. Nevertheless the Commission continued to encourage the formation
of an English Langue, which took place in January 1831, with the election
of Sr Robert Peat, Bart, former chaplain of George IV, as "Prior ad
interim of the Tongue of England". However, a split amongst the British
members occurred the next year. By 1837, the party which the French Commission
had recognized had more or less disappeared, and the other party led by
Robert Peat continued on its own. Peat was succeeded by Sir Robert Dymoke
in 1838, Lt-Col. Sir Charles Montolieu Lamb, Bart, in 1847, Rear-Admiral
Sir Alexander Arbuthnot in 1860.

The English group made contact again with the French knights in 1838,
only to learn that Sainte Croix-Molay was considered a disreputable and
disavowed character. The English group nevertheless tried to negotiate
recognition from the Lieutenancy, who replied that they could not accept
non-Catholics. The English also sought the patronage of the duke of Sussex,
who turned them down in 1839.

The English group almost disappeared, but, led by Sir John Broun, it
persisted in hoping for recognition, basing themselves on letters patent
of 1557 recreating the order in England (although it was abolished again
by Elizabeth I in 1560). Now called "the Sovereign and Illustrious
Order of Saint-John of Jerusalem: Anglia", it made contact again in
1857 with the Lieutenancy of the Order in Rome, through a Catholic member
of the English group, John James Watts. Negotiations started, with the
aim of establishing a Catholic priory, which in turn would form a Protestant
branch (the existing group, of course). The Lieutenancy was initially favorably
disposed, but the three English knights of Malta, led by Sir George Bowyer,
and including John James Watts, who had just been received as members and
were to form the Catholic priory decided to break off with the English
group instead. A British Association of the Order of Malta was to be founded
in 1876.

The English association nevertheless persisted in its efforts at some
kind of recognition. It enlisted the support of the 7th duke of Manchester
who became their grand prior in 1861. The group drew up a Constitution
in 1871 and renamed itself more modestly "Order of Saint-John of Jerusalem
in England". A corps of ambulances was created in the 1860s, roughly
around the same time as (or preceding) the real Order of Malta's charitable
activities and those of the Red Cross. The Princess of Wales became Lady
of the Order in 1876, and she in turn secured the membership of the Prince
of Wales.

The priory finally received a royal charter in 1888, which changed its
name to The Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Most Venerable
Order of the Hospital of Saint-John of Jerusalem, and made the sovereign
of Great Britain its Sovereign Head and Patron. The Prince of Wales was
appointed Grand Prior in 1890 by Queen Victoria, and since then the Prior
has always been a member of the royal family.

After the Royal Charter

This royal charter changed the nature of the order. It now enjoys official
recognition in Great Britain, and is indeed a British order of chivalry
(albeit one with a peculiar status, totally independent of the government,
and the only one conferring neither precedence nor use of the title "Sir").
That is an advantage that few orders, self-styled or otherwise, possess.
This, however, changes nothing to the origin of the order: it started as
a 19th century revival of a defunct organization, the English branch of
Malta, abolished in 1540 by Henry VIII.

The desire to represent the Venerable Order as the heir to the historical
Order of Saint John is evident in the Librarian of the Order's work,
Edwin James King's The Knights of
St. John in the British realm: being the official history of the Most
Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem (continued
after King's death in 1952 by Sir Harry Luke), published in 1967 in
London by the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem.
This was the 3d edition of E. J. King's history of the Venerable Order.
The book studies the Priory of the historical Order until its abolition
in the 16th century, and describes the organization since 1831 as a
"revival" which received "official regonition" (not existence or
legitimacy) from the charter of 1888. He writes, for example:
"[In 1871] So far the Order of Saint John had succeeded in re-establishing
itself in England and in reviving certain of its ancient dignities (p. 144)
[...] The knights of Saint John were now to receive their official recognition
in the form of a Charter from Queen Victoria [...] Queen Victoria's charter
expressly defines the continuity between the original Grand Priory and its
revival in these words: 'The Grand Priory of England is the Head of the
Sixth or English Language of the Venerable Order of the Hospital of St.
John of Jerusalem'" (p. 149). Among many other examples, one can cite
Appendix F of the book "On the seals of the grand priory", which shows
"the ancient seals" (until the 16th c.) and "the modern seals" (since
1831); this is not innocuous, since in English law corporate seals are
the legal mark of identity.

But Queen Victoria cannot make the Venerable Order into what it cannot be: it cannot
be "the Priory in Great Britain" of the Order of Saint John of
Jerusalem, because the latter is a Catholic order with its own British
association, and the Queen of Great Britain does not have the power to
create priories of that order. The language of the 1888 charter is even more
jarring: by calling the new order "the sixth or English language" a clear
reference was made to the historical Order of Saint John, in which, until
the reorganization of the 19th century, the knights were grouped in Languages
or Tongues, and England was the 6th. Before and after its
transmutation into a British order of chivalry, the order has used a name
(Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem) which belongs, or is
a purposeful imitation of a name which belongs to another institution.
The aim of such use is to assume some of the historical prestige and legacy
of the historical order of Malta: self-styled orders do no less.

The relations between the English Order and the Order of Malta were
predictably icy for a long time. But in the end, time worked its magic,
and a reconciliation of sorts took place. A Joint Declaration was issued
by the Order of Malta and the British Order of Saint John on 26 November
1963:

The relationship which exists between the Sovereign Military
Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of
Malta and the Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Most
Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem is
not always clearly understood, and it is to dispel any
misconceptions which may exist that this statement is being
made.
A dispute, long since relegated to the realms of academic
discussion, as to whether the Most Venerable Order was the
lineal desdendent of the old Grand Priory of the Sovereign
Order, at one time caused division amongst those concerned
with such questions. Certain it is that the Most Venerable
Order acquired a completely independent existence when it
was granted a Royal Charter by Her Majesty Queen Victoria,
who became its Sovereign Head.
Since this time the Most Venerable Order has pursued the
same high ideals of charity, especially to the poor and
sick, which were the very cause of the foundation of the
Sovereign Order nearly one thousand years ago.
It will be easy to understand, therefore, why two great
Orders, representing the same traditions, pursuing the same
ideals, serving the same cause and wearing the same famous
eight pointed cross, should have the greatest respect and
esteem for each other. It is our happiness to declare that
such a relationship does truly exist, and that it is the
dearest wish of both Orders, to seek ever more ways in which
they can collaborate, to serve God's glory and to alleviate
the sufferings and miseries of mankind.

Notice that the issue of legitimacy and recognition is skirted adroitly;
in particular, the Order of Malta does not recognize the British Order
to be "the" Order of Saint John, as its name implies. What one
can conclude from this, is that, from Malta's point of view, the British
Order is worth collaborating with for purposes of charity, and questions
of legitimacy and usurpation of name are secondary. Few other orders enjoy
this form of recognition. To this day, members of the Order of Malta are
also members of the British Order (as was, e.g., Mgr Bruno Bernard Heim),
as good a sign of reconciliation as any.

References

*King:, Edwin James: The Grand Priory of the Order of the Hospital
of Saint-John of Jerusalem in England: a Short History. London: Fleetway
Press, 1924.

King, Edwin James: The Knights of St. John in the British empire; being the
official history of the British Order of the Hospital of St.
John of Jerusalem.
London: St. John ambulance association, 1934.

*King, Edwin James: The Knights of St. John in the British realm: being the official history
of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem. (3d. edition,
continued by Sir Harry Luke). London: Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of
Jerusalem, 1967.

* Malcolm Barber (ed): The military orders : fighting for the
faith and caring for the sick Aldershot, Great Britain, 1994; Variorum.

Order of the Militia of Jesus-Christ (ca. 1885)

Saint Dominic founded an order by that name in 1216; but it was not
an order of chivalry, and it did not survive very long.

The modern revival began, innocently enough, in 1870, after the capture
of Rome by Italian troops. Former members of the Papal army, under the
comte de Beaumont, decided to found an association which would fight for
the rights of the Holy See and stand ready to assist it against its enemies.
The name of the association was Milizia di Cristo, crociata di preghiera
e di azione (Militia of Jesus-Christ, crusade of prayer and action).
This society, which admitted women, was organized in sections headed by
"promoters," and was placed under the spiritual guidance of the
Dominicans. Its name recalled the Militia of Jesus-Christ founded by Saint
Dominic in 1216, although no claim to be a continuation of that institution
was made. The Dominicans looked favorably on the new institutions, affiliating
its members with the Third Order of the Dominicans. The comte de Beaumont
merely called himself Organisateur de la Milice de Jésus-Christ
pour la défense du Saint Siège, and the cross worn by
members consisted simply of a cross potent argent with a medallion in the
center.

One day things changed abrutply. On the occasion of the funeral of the
French admiral Courbet in 1885, a Paris newspaper, L'Univers (Aug
30, 1885) mentioned the presence of a representative of the Militia, and
asserted that "the Militia [was] a religious and chivalric order founded
by Innocent III and Saint Dominic, and Pius IX had appointed the comte
de Beaumont as Grand Master of the Order in France". The General of
the Dominicans, Padre Larroca, was rather surprised, and made inquiries.
He discovered that the comte de Beaumont had retired and been succeeded
by Domenico Piccoli, who started calling himself Lieutenant General and
Grand Prior of the Cross of Paris of the Order. The Order was renamed Ordine
religioso cavalleresco della Milizia di N.S. Gesu Cristo, its members
calling themselves knights and commanders, wearing a uniform with white
jacket, and the shape of the insignia had become the black and white cross
flory of the Dominicans. Alarmed, the General of the Dominicans wrote to
Piccoli and informed him that all links between the Dominicans and the
Militia were severed, and asking him to stop using insignia related to
those of the Dominicans. His successor also wrote to Piccoli in 1888 telling
him not to use titles such as Lieutenant-General or Grand-Master, since
theirs was an association, not an order. Some years later, Piccoli made
another attempt at obtaining official endorsement, and received a reply
from P. Cormier, Procurator General of the Dominicans, once again refusing
to have anything to do with the Militia (1897).

At this point, Piccoli turned elsewhere for patronage, and persuaded
the Melkite Catholic patriarch of Antioch, Peter IV, to become Grand Master,
in 1900. Peter IV died in 1902, and the Mastership was offered to his successor
Cyrill VIII, who immediately wrote to the Pope for his approval. The Holy
See's reaction was swift. In 1904, the Secretary of State of the Holy See
wrote to Piccoli to inform him that the Order of the Militia of Christ
was not approved by the Holy See, and that Cyrill VIII would not accept
the Mastership.

In the end, Piccoli assumed himself the Grand Mastership of his order.
He died in 1916, but the association seems to have survived him; and it
was still in existence in the 1970s. Some members of the Militia, however,
went on to found other revived orders. In particular, Paul Watrin, knight
of the Militia in 1902, founded in 1910 a revived order
of Saint Lazarus and placed it under the protection of the same Melkite
patriarch in the same year.

Bertrand, Paul. L'ordre de la Milice de Jésus-Christ, de
Saint-Dominique et de Saint Pierre Martyr. Paris, 1938. (I have
not seen this book; the author is the official chronicler of the revived
order of St Lazarus).

This noble confraternity, known in English as Saint George of Burgundy,
was founded in 1390 by Philippe de Mollans,
a nobleman from Franche-Comté or comté de Bourgogne. A tradition
claims that he made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and brought back a relic
of Saint George. Soon after he founded the Order in question. Its statutes
are known: members had to prove 16 quarters of nobility and 10 degrees
of nobility in male line, be natives of Franche-Comté, Catholics
and 16 or older, and pay 300 livres. A governor was elected for life; other
officers included a chancelor (a cleric), a treasurer and two secretaries.
Assemblies were held every year. The society lapsed but was revived in
1485; it swore allegiance to Philip II of Spain in 1569, expelled a Protestant
in 1584; it stopped meeting during the Thirty Years War but resumed after
1648, and met yearly in Besançon. The arms of the order (Gules
Saint George or) were registered in 1696. In 1768 the statutes were
revised. Many of the order's members emigrated or died during the Revolution,
and it had only 25 members in 1814. In 1816 the survivors regrouped
under the leadership of Charles-Emmanuel, marquis de Saint-Mauris (1753-1839),
baron-pair in 1828, of an ancient local family that had counted many members
of the order (Révérend, vol. 6, p. 194). The statutes were revised to
allow for speedy reception of siblings and children of former members,
and other receptions brought the order to 78 in 1817, date of the last
reception of members.
But the order was abolished in 1824 when an Royal ordinance
of April 16, 1824 made it illegal to wear decorations and insignia other
than those of the Royal orders. An instruction of the Chancery of the Legion
of Honor of May 5, 1824 specifically cited the Order of Saint George as
abolished. No knights were subsequently received. The last knight, the
marquis de Jouffroy d'Abbans, died in 1869, at which point the Order became
extinct.

In the Bibliothèque nationale, collection Clairambault, are two
volumes on this order: 1318 contains printed material, 1319 contains a list of
members from 1575 to 1703.

The insignia of the order was a medallion showing Saint George
killing the dragon, hung from a ribbon, initially red (with the approval
of the duke of Burgundy Philippe le Bon), changed to blue under Louis XIV.

This story is told by Pidoux de la Maduère in an article in Rivista
Araldica (Aug 1905 pp. 465-72). Great was his surprise some 25 years
later when he learned of a revival of the order (in fact, he even received
a diploma as "commander" of the order in December 1929!)

The revived order followed a worn pattern. In a typical fashion, it
was claimed that the order was actually founded in 1167 in Palestine by
Roger, bishop of Arimathea, brought back to France around 1300, reinvigorated
in 1390 by Philippe de Mollans. Supposedly, it was not abolished in 1824
but survived until 1880, when, allegedly, new statutes were given to it.
It only really surfaces in the 1920s, when it is headed by a Grand Referendary
named the comte de Maupas (false title of comte, non-noble family name changed
from "Maupas" to "de Maupas" in 1853; Dioudonnat, p. 447). Maupas
was succeeded in 1923 by a marquis de Golbery (another false title)
and in 1926 replaced by a General Government assisted by a Sacred Council
headed by a duc de Lavillatte (yet another false title).
In 1929 Francesco Antonio
di Gonzaga di Mantua was elected Governor of the order, and revised statutes
of the Apostolic and Hospitaller Order of Saint George and Notre-Dame
du Mont-Carmel were published. The new order was rather different in
spirit: the nobility requirements were dispensed with, the exclusion of
non-Catholics was relaxed, and recruitment extended outside of
Franche-Comté.
The name "Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel" was added, based on the
claim that knights of the French order of Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel had
merged their order with that of Saint-Georges (never mind that N-D du Mont-Carmel
was never an independent order, but merely a duplicate of Saint-Lazare).
The same year, the French Association of the Knights of Saint George was
registered as a non-profit association under French law (14 Mar 1929).
In 1931, the order in question dropped any reference to Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel...
By 1934, the Order of Saint-Georges claimed the membership of the French
generals Weygand and Gouraud, as well as 3 Italian generals and 3 American
generals. It found an ardent supporter in Adriano Colocci-Vespucci, who
wrote several articles in Rivista Araldica (1934, p.562-7, 1935
p.61-63). An article by A. de Rubeis (Rivista Araldica, Feb 1938,
pp.79-83) lists other eminent members: the archduke Franz-Josef of Habsburg-Lothringen,
the archduke Ferdinando of Lorraine-Tuscany, prince William of Wied (king
of Albania in 1914), the French general de Castelnau, the admiral Dartiguez,
the vice-admiral de Neresteny, the presidents of Venezuela, Peru, Cuba,
the Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia, two cardinals, Victor Dowling (New
York Supreme Court), etc. Note that Dowling was also a knight of Saint-Lazarus.

One of the individuals involved was an orthodox priest, the archmandrite
Demeter de Ser Leo (already connected to the contemporaneous revival of
Saint Lazarus, of which he was a member). He was tried in November 1937
by a military court in Rome and found guilty (along with two Frenchmen)
of illegal sale of decorations; the same court declared the order to have
been abolished in 1824 and inexistent.
Even worse, the "duc de Lavillatte", a.k.a. "duc de Saint-Simon", whose
real name was Philippe Dissandes de Lavillatte (an old non-noble family
from the Berry, according to Dioudonnat), was sued
for usurping the name of Saint-Simon and for wearing false orders and
impersonating a general. The offending occasion, though not the sole
one, was his appearance at the funeral of a general at the Invalides
on 10 Jan 1934, styling himself "Most Serene Highness general duc de
Saint-Simon", wearing the uniorm of an Italian general, and wearing
no less than 22 decorations. He claimed that his father had received
the ducal title from the king of Montenegro in 1920, and also claimed
to descend from the famous writer duc de Saint-Simon (d. 1755). The
court sentenced him to a suspended sentence of 8 days in jail, a
criminal fine of 500F and a civil fine to the Saint-Simon family
of 8,000F (Tribunal correctionnel de la Seine, 9 Dec 1936;
Recueil Sirey, 1937, 2:133).

Not surprisingly, the order disappears
completely after that date, although it is included in the list of false
orders condemned by the Holy See in 1953.

The parallels with the revived order of Saint-Lazarus
are striking: an ancient order which died out in France after 1830, revived
in the 1920s (albeit with membership requirements much loosened), with
vague claims that it had survived secretly in the 19th century, some of
the same individuals involved in both activities, a Grand-Master with an
impressive name chosen in 1929, a sudden surge of activity with famous
people supposedly becoming members, including presidents of Latin American
countries, etc.

There appears to be a recent
revival of this order by Pierre Pasleau, an habitué of the false title circuit.

The Modern Order of Saint-Lazarus

I discussed briefly the prior history
of the Order of Saint Lazarus. It was a hospitaller order founded in the
12th c. in Jerusalem to serve as hospital for knights who had contracted
leprosy. Since leprosy did not necessarily incapacitate, the hospital acquired
a structure modelled on the other military-monastic orders in the Holy
Land, and, as manpower grew scarce in the late 13th c., some members were
involved in battles against Muslims. After the fall of Acre in 1291, the
last remnants of the order moved back to Western Europe, mainly France
and Italy. The Pope tried to merge it with the Order of Saint John in 1489,
then merged it with the Savoyard order of Saint Maurice in 1572. The remaining
French priory, which refused to obey the Pope, was transformed into a French
royal order and united with the Order of Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel in 1608;
it underwent many changes and was abolished in 1791. Not restaured in 1814,
it disappeared with its last members in the mid-19th century.

The Order was revived in 1910 and the organization still exists today.
I discuss its modern history in a separate page.

The Niadh Nask was
a self-described "non-chivalric order of knighthood" which was claimed to have
roots in a medieval caste of Irish warriors and to be associated with the
MacCarthy family
(princes of Desmond until the 16th c.). Evidence of its
existence prior to recent times was scant (for example, a cross-shaped
badge hangs around the neck of the last prince of Desmond in a 19th
century copy of an alleged 16th c. portrait, now lost, and of stylistically
dubious authenticity). Its defenders claimed that it had survived until the 1970s
as a rather confidential order confined to the MacCarthy
family. It considerably extended its public presence under
the grand-mastership of Terence MacCarthy, a.k.a. the "MacCarthy Mór".
There was substantial overlap in the memberships of the Niadh Nask and
the Order of St. Lazarus.

In late 1999, what many people had suspected became patently clear: Terence
MacCarthy, whose descent from the princes of Desmond was debunked by
Sean J. Murphy, was a complete fraud, and had completely invented the Niadh Nask.
Elements of this now obsolete controversy can be found in this
page.

Although bona fide orders have been created out of private initiative
for charitable, military or religious purposes ever since the original
order of Saint John (now known as Malta), since the 19th century there
has been a large number of orders created either to satisfy personal vanity,
or to enrich a group of people (or both). Not all recently created orders
of chivalry need be condemned by such a blanket statement, but caveat
emptor remains the rule.

Legal Status

Legally, some (but only few) governments have adopted a stand on
orders of chivalry:

On the Web

Patriarchal Order
of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem
Founded in the late 1960s by the head of the Melchite Greek Catholic Church,
the Patriarch Maximos V. It has ranks, titles, fees ($1500 for a knight,
$11750 for a grand cross), decorations, fancy costumes, investiture
ceremonies, etc. Coincidentally,
the patriarch is also the spiritual protector of the order of St Lazarus.

Order of Saint Ignatius
founded in 1976 by the metropolitan of the Antiochian Orthodox archdiocese
of North America, with the blessing of the Antioch patriarch Elias IV.

Sacred Orthodox Order of the Most Holy Cross of Saint Constantine the Great
This self-described "ecclesiastical order of merit"
made a brief appearance on the Web; it is apparently tied to the
Orthodox bishop of Milan. Its badge is a stunning likeness of the
badge of the
Constantinian Order of St George of the Two Sicilies.
Its recognition by the ICOC
is said to be pending. There are two associated orders, the
Supreme Order of St. Ambrosius and
the Orthodox Order of Saint Mary Magdalen at the Holy Sepulchre of Christ.

"Peerage Conferred"
This title peddler (be a duke for $1500!) also confers the "Order of Saint Andrew
of Jerusalem". Dukes get the "Order of St. Victor" for free.

Bibliography

I include here a bibliography taken from Ivo Suetens: Bibliographie
Numismatique: Ordres et Décorations, Bruxelles, 1969, 1977.
I have not seen these books, and it is likely that they are quite
rare, many of them being 16-page pamphlets without place or date of publication.
But the list is, of itself, instructive, as it provides traces for the
activities of these orders over time.

Zeininger de Borja, H. C. Vanitas Vanitatum, o el trafico de condecoraciones
fantasticas. Leysin, 1939. (Zeininger, a serious heraldist, spent a
lot of time denouncing self-styled orders, and was a fierce critic of the
order of S. Lazarus.)

Lusignan ordersIn 1880, a former Maronite priest named Kafta and his wife started
peddling an Order of Melusina, claiming to represent the royal house of
Lusignan (which reigned over Cyprus in the 13th to 15th centuries) and
calling themselves Guy and Marie de Lusignan. After his death, her lover
became Grand Master and called himself comte d'Alby de Gratigny, but became
involved in a fake art intrigue in 1910.

Pelliccioni di Poli, Luciano: L'Ordine di San Giorgio in Carinzia.
Rome, 1975. Another edition in 1983 with slightly different title: L'Ordine
Sovrano Militare Ospedaliero di San Giorgio in Carinzia. On the cover
of the first edition the author is styled "conte di Montecocullo, Gran
Cancelliere dell'Ordine".

Saint Hubert of BarA nobiliary confraternity of this name did exist in Old Regime France,
similar to S. George of Burgundy. Like it, it was revived in the 20th century
by Ernest-Diomede Caprotti during World War II; its chancellor was a Dutchman,
Charles J.A. Begeer. This order had as its head a prince Galitzin and later
Eugene-Leopold of Bavaria (cf. Zeininger 1953).

Saint Sébastien et Saint GuillaumeOriginally a crossbow practice group of the 15th century, briefly revived
in the 1730s. Recreated by L. Doucet inthe 1900s as a pseudo-nobiliary
order with Grand-Cross, Commander, Officer and Knight. The insignia was
a Maltese cross with two arrows crossed between the branches and surmounted
by a countal coronet.